Licences

[Momac]

9 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

That's my point though, its not a valid comparison. 

Sorry I misunderstood

[Midnight]

5 hours ago, magnetman said:

It is important in this topic to understand that CMers and bridgehoppers do not exist.

 

 You mean to say you never noticed any?
Okay maybe not a recognised term but CMers and bridge hoppers certainly do exist (and could be identified) or should we call them non-moving-continuous-cruisers or what about freeloaders?

 

Try this as an example - boaters without a home mooring whose range is less than XXX miles will have to pay a surcharge of £XXX

 

 

Edited September 29, 2023 by Midnight

[magnetman]

Its an interesting idea. 

 

The point is that it doesn't actually make any difference how far or how much people move. Anyone declaring no home mooring is getting free moorings all the time on towpaths. 

 

I do understand what you are getting at but I think you are barking up the wrong tree and it is a red herring. 

 

A cc er is a cc er regardless of how they use the boat. The financial benefit they derive is free moorings. 

 

Charging people according to how much or how far they move is irrelevant because even if you were to move a hundred miles in a month -on CRT water- you are deriving exactly the same benefit from this as someone who moves 2 miles a month. Both of these people are getting free moorings on towpaths.

 

That is the point. It isn't the behaviour it is the type of licence you have and the declaration made when buying it.

 

 

At some point the CRT are going to have to start taking money for mooring on towpaths. Increasing the cost of a cc licence may be the beginning of this process. 

 

 

Of course I know what CMer and bridgehopper means but these are not relevant terms. They are continuous cruisers. They have declared on the licence application the intention to bona fide cruise...14 days... ..reasonable...circumstances .

 

IF they are behaving illegally the tools exist to deal with and get rid of non compliant boat users who are behaving outside of the law. 

 

There is no such thing as a genuine cc er or a bogus cc er. These separate definitions do not exist so I can't see how varying the costs could work in reality. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Midnight]

10 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Its an interesting idea. 

 

The point is that it doesn't actually make any difference how far or how much people move. Anyone declaring no home mooring is getting free moorings all the time on towpaths. 

 

I do understand what you are getting at but I think you are barking up the wrong tree and it is a red herring. 

 

A cc er is a cc er regardless of how they use the boat. The financial benefit they derive is free moorings. 

 

Charging people according to how much or how far they move is irrelevant because even if you were to move a hundred miles in a month -on CRT water- you are deriving exactly the same benefit from this as someone who moves 2 miles a month. Both of these people are getting free moorings on towpaths.

 

That is the point. It isn't the behaviour it is the type of licence you have and the declaration made when buying it.

 

 

At some point the CRT are going to have to start taking money for mooring on towpaths. Increasing the cost of a cc licence may be the beginning of this process. 

 

 

Of course I know what CMer and bridgehopper means but these are not relevant terms. They are continuous cruisers. They have declared on the licence application the intention to bona fide cruise...14 days... ..reasonable...circumstances .

 

IF they are behaving illegally the tools exist to deal with and get rid of non compliant boat users who are behaving outside of the law. 

 

There is no such thing as a genuine cc er or a bogus cc er. These separate definitions do not exist so I can't see how varying the costs could work in reality. 

 

 Yes I agree but was just putting an alternative as I feel genuine CCers-who-comply are payng the price for those who do not comply. The added benefit would be that option would encourage compliance would it not?

[magnetman]

Just now, Midnight said:

 Yes I agree but was just putting an alternative as I feel genuine CCers-who-comply are payng the price for those who do not comply. The added benefit would be that option would encourage compliance would it not?

 

It could have a counterproductive effect of giving people the idea they can break the law by paying more money. Obviously this is nothing new but possibly a little unideal although yes it could be an interesting way to charge for towpath moorings.

 

I suppose the CRT already do that for winter moorings so why not for summer moorings as well. 

I also don't think it is accurate to say compliant cc ers (the genuine ones) are in any way 'paying the price' for the non compliant version. They are all getting the same benefit which is free moorings. 

 

 

 

It really doesn't make any difference what the movement pattern is. I mean if one were to be a bit logical it would make sense to charge people who do move more money than those who don't because they are using moveable structures which are known to be expensive to maintain..

 

Assuming the board are satisfied that there are reasonable circumstances it would make a lot of sense to encourage people not to move and charge those that do move extra for the privilege of utilising the infrastructure. 

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

11 minutes ago, Midnight said:

 Yes I agree but was just putting an alternative as I feel genuine CCers-who-comply are payng the price for those who do not comply. The added benefit would be that option would encourage compliance would it not?

We all are, really, including moorers. If the dumpers and noncompliers had been paying mooring fees for the last 25 years, there would be a hell of a lot more money in the pot, and none of us would be facing such huge hikes. We are all, to coin a phrase, in the same boat.

[Momac]

52 minutes ago, Midnight said:

 CCers-who-comply are payng the price for those who do not comply. 

They are not yet paying

[IanD]

Just now, MartynG said:

They are not yet paying

But it looks likely that they will when the license fee changes are announced...

[Momac]

12 minutes ago, IanD said:

But it looks likely that they will when the license fee changes are announced...

The fees do not rise as  soon as the changes are announced 

The higher fees do not start until April 2024 at the earliest and even then only at the next date when a fresh licence is required ,

[Unicorn Stampede]

I notice that people are assuming that CCers will either (a) pay the new costs or (b) move off the cut. For me, there's absolutely a third option (there's also a fourth and fifth but that's not relevant to this post!)

 

I'm not entirely sure what CRT actually does if a genuine CCer (I know there's a bunch of comments about genuine, but I use the term in the notion of someone that always moves on) decides to not pay.

 

As I mentioned before, there's a whole heap of ways to simply avoid paying costs via the dodgy online account system, however my understanding is so far only CMers have been properly targeted for not being licensed. They're the easy ones to target right? We know where they are. We can arrange someone to come and grab the boat etc etc.

 

On our sightings report, there are multiple months where we have disappeared from spotters (and the record logs they keep for manned locks aren't updated with those sightings).

 

If we just decided to not pay and continue to move as we were, apart from a host of emails telling us there would be consequences, I'm not entirely sure I believe CRT would follow up...  it would so much more work and manpower than say the George Ward (was that his name?) situation.

 

I raise this because there could be a window where people who do CC properly just don't pay, regardless of the moral reasonings, that's just lost CRT money. The NBTA (or the NABO, I forget which) is currently querying members on an appropriate response. One of them is that all their members stop paying their license.

 

That makes my above query even harder to handle. Suddenly it's not the odd moving non payer. It's potentially a whole heap of 'em. How does CRT go about chasing all those CCers. I'd imagine the answer is, they don't...

Edited September 29, 2023 by Unicorn Stampede

[Momac]

7 minutes ago, Unicorn Stampede said:

 Suddenly it's not the odd moving non payer. It's potentially a whole heap of 'em. How does CRT go about chasing all those CCers. I'd imagine the answer is, they don't...

I agree in the sense that the entire C&RT licensing system relies on honesty 

If , for example 100 boat owners  got together and displayed the same boat name and index  and shared one valid license (print as many as you need) what would C&RT  do about it ?

 

[IanD]

21 minutes ago, Unicorn Stampede said:

I notice that people are assuming that CCers will either (a) pay the new costs or (b) move off the cut. For me, there's absolutely a third option (there's also a fourth and fifth but that's not relevant to this post!)

 

I'm not entirely sure what CRT actually does if a genuine CCer (I know there's a bunch of comments about genuine, but I use the term in the notion of someone that always moves on) decides to not pay.

 

As I mentioned before, there's a whole heap of ways to simply avoid paying costs via the dodgy online account system, however my understanding is so far only CMers have been properly targeted for not being licensed. They're the easy ones to target right? We know where they are. We can arrange someone to come and grab the boat etc etc.

 

On our sightings report, there are multiple months where we have disappeared from spotters (and the record logs they keep for manned locks aren't updated with those sightings).

 

If we just decided to not pay and continue to move as we were, apart from a host of emails telling us there would be consequences, I'm not entirely sure I believe CRT would follow up...  it would so much more work and manpower than say the George Ward (was that his name?) situation.

 

I raise this because there could be a window where people who do CC properly just don't pay, regardless of the moral reasonings, that's just lost CRT money. The NBTA (or the NABO, I forget which) is currently querying members on an appropriate response. One of them is that all their members stop paying their license.

 

That makes my above query even harder to handle. Suddenly it's not the odd moving non payer. It's potentially a whole heap of 'em. How does CRT go about chasing all those CCers. I'd imagine the answer is, they don't...

How do you not pay up, when at license renewal time you declare that you're a CCer with no home mooring -- and will get charged a higher license fee?

[Paul C]

25 minutes ago, Unicorn Stampede said:

I notice that people are assuming that CCers will either (a) pay the new costs or (b) move off the cut. For me, there's absolutely a third option (there's also a fourth and fifth but that's not relevant to this post!)

 

I'm not entirely sure what CRT actually does if a genuine CCer (I know there's a bunch of comments about genuine, but I use the term in the notion of someone that always moves on) decides to not pay.

 

As I mentioned before, there's a whole heap of ways to simply avoid paying costs via the dodgy online account system, however my understanding is so far only CMers have been properly targeted for not being licensed. They're the easy ones to target right? We know where they are. We can arrange someone to come and grab the boat etc etc.

 

On our sightings report, there are multiple months where we have disappeared from spotters (and the record logs they keep for manned locks aren't updated with those sightings).

 

If we just decided to not pay and continue to move as we were, apart from a host of emails telling us there would be consequences, I'm not entirely sure I believe CRT would follow up...  it would so much more work and manpower than say the George Ward (was that his name?) situation.

 

I raise this because there could be a window where people who do CC properly just don't pay, regardless of the moral reasonings, that's just lost CRT money. The NBTA (or the NABO, I forget which) is currently querying members on an appropriate response. One of them is that all their members stop paying their license.

 

That makes my above query even harder to handle. Suddenly it's not the odd moving non payer. It's potentially a whole heap of 'em. How does CRT go about chasing all those CCers. I'd imagine the answer is, they don't...

 

Interesting concept. Putting aside the CRT's diabolical record of timely enforcement, in theory they could start S.8 proceedings even if you aren't stationary, then once all the various notices have been given and its "time's up", you'll be constantly looking over your shoulder.

 

There is nothing in law to stop them using covert means of sighting/enforcement, as well as overt, right?

 

Best of luck doing locks.......

[Unicorn Stampede]

Oh I agree, there's nothing stopping them doing it. I assume that once they've gone through all the process of getting all the documents etc in line they could do something...

 

Could being the operative word.

 

It would require them lining up the right team and the right people, in the right place, at the right time. Just a pondering thought I had spurred from all this nonsense. With how unorganized everything else done by CRT, I'm not convinced they would take action.

 

It seems like it took them a whole heap of time and manpower to sort out Mr Ward, that it would just be some lingering threat.

 

 

Edited September 29, 2023 by Unicorn Stampede

[Paul C]

If I was going to run from the law, I'd do it in something faster than 4mph.

 

 

ETA and not made of steel.....

 

https://sheertrends.com/products/magnetic-mini-worldwide-gps-tracker-not-included-sim-card-and-memory-card?currency=GBP&variant=46546397299023&utm_medium=cpc&utm_source=google&utm_campaign=Google Shopping&stkn=348320a9b4a8&gclid=CjwKCAjw69moBhBgEiwAUFCx2DbgpyO-JHwz_SWc-Dl6-i1ROBSMenL_bBr2MZaFMU3QtEnKnftGAhoCxKAQAvD_BwE

Edited September 29, 2023 by Paul C

[Unicorn Stampede]

10 minutes ago, Paul C said:

If I was going to run from the law, I'd do it in something faster than 4mph.

 

I'd likely be more concerned if it was the council chasing me. Bizarrely, of all 'groups' interested in going about things the way the law dictates, they are the real sticklers for chasing and following up with actions (well, and HMRC). 

 

CRTs track record doesnt provide as much concern in my eyes. Like MartynG said, it relies more on honesty than say risk of actual enforcement. I pay because I like to think maybe two or three quid of my license goes into the system. When we start up our canal business, I'll pay for the same reason (I say this now... guess it depends how broke it'll make me...)

 

Personally it becomes a tough pill to swallow when you're asked to pay more and don't feel like what you're putting in, is being used effectively.

 

It's the same nonsense as paying for council tax and wondering why things are in such a shit state. 

 

I only mention this third idea of staying but not paying because I don't believe it's been raised as an action some genuine CC boaters might take (or maybe lots if the NBTA/NABO go through with a potential proposal).

 

Also worth noting that the chasing of CRT etc only really works if you even kept all your boat details up to date and allowed CRT to pester you. If you simply went (ironic to say) off grid with your contact details, it becomes I think an absolute impossibility to track based on CRTs current systems.

[Paul C]

5 minutes ago, Unicorn Stampede said:

 

Also worth noting that the chasing of CRT etc only really works if you even kept all your boat details up to date and allowed CRT to pester you. If you simply went (ironic to say) off grid with your contact details, it becomes I think an absolute impossibility to track based on CRTs current systems.

 

There is provision in law for removing an unlicensed boat even if there no index/name/unable to write to owner (they stick notices on the boat). In fact, I dare say it makes it easier in the case of liveaboards because they won't know that, so they'll skip those extra steps only applicable to them.

 

(And when I say CRT, it might well be an external specialist company that do it, much like finance firms will use "repo" companies to find and repo cars).

[peterboat]

2 hours ago, MartynG said:

I agree in the sense that the entire C&RT licensing system relies on honesty 

If , for example 100 boat owners  got together and displayed the same boat name and index  and shared one valid license (print as many as you need) what would C&RT  do about it ?

 

I am laughing but it's a good comment and would cause chaos.

I'm Sparticus comes to mind

[Alan de Enfield]

2 hours ago, Unicorn Stampede said:

The NBTA (or the NABO, I forget which) is currently querying members on an appropriate response. One of them is that all their members stop paying their license.

 

I would very much doubt it is NABO who have always seemed a reasonable law abiding organisation who have supported boaters and the waterways against scroungers and vagabonds (and that is just C&RT)

 

On the other hand The Baton Twirlers (NBTA) have always been 'tetering on the edge' promoting anarchy and encouraging law breaking. I could easily believe that they would co-ordinate a mass law breaking group of boaters refusing to renew their licences.

Edited September 29, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[peterboat]

2 hours ago, IanD said:

How do you not pay up, when at license renewal time you declare that you're a CCer with no home mooring -- and will get charged a higher license fee?

He wont pay Ian, he will cruise off into the sunset 

[Rambling Boater]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

On the other hand The Baton Twirlers (NBTA)

 

?

[TheBiscuits]

10 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

It is simply, in other words, that CaRT would find difficulty in justifying the application of differing standards based only on the nature of the boat licence application.

 

That's a very interesting turn of phrase if there is going to be a clear commercial difference between types of licence ...

 

CCers having precedence at locks and the right to move home-moorers on from visitor moorings based on a premium licence is going to be interesting!

 

 

[magnetman]

Choosing to not pay is really not a very clever idea. 

 

It might seem like it but it actually isn't because all it will do is hasten the introduction of private security contractors to deal with towpath moorings. Some of these can give you a hard time and it won't be pleasant. 

 

If there was a coordinated non payment effort things will get worse for everybody. Of course the aim of the NBTA appears to be to force negative changes on waterways so it would be right up their street. 

 

A far more clever approach would be to arrange for payment to be made monthly by direct debit and stop the DD when it gets to what you think should have been the licence fee. 

 

So for example if your licence is now £1200 then add 10% inflation it should be £1320. IF the CRT double the licence cost then you divide it by 12, pay monthly then stop after 6 months to 'make your point'. 

 

If the suggestion is to stop paying then why are people paying currently ? You should have stopped paying ages ago if the aim was to not pay. 

 

 

 

[Lady M]

Some people aren't paying currently.

[magnetman]

Yes it is about 6 percent I think.

 

 

 

It was the suggestion that people stop paying because there is an above inflation increase. To me it makes more sense if you want to make a point to not pay the increase but continue to pay the standard licence fee. 

 

Going from paying to not paying is complicated because you have previously identified yourself as someone who pays. 

 

 

Or is the idea to encourage a load of new people onto the cut who just buy a visitor licence to get on the cut with fake details then never pay a penny going forwards?

 

Is that a Good Idea ?